Personhood Bill seen as threat to fertility efforts

RICHMOND — Fertility experts say Virginia’s Personhood Bill threatens more than just abortion access — it could eliminate the practice of in-vitro fertilization.

The House Bill 1, referred to as the Personhood Bill, would grant constitutional rights to embryos at conception.

“We have concluded that Personhood measures, like HB 1, pose a serious threat to fertility treatments,” said Barbara Collura, executive director of RESOLVE: the National Infertility Association, a national nonprofit that promotes reproductive health based in McLean.

“Experts on reproductive medicine and law have reviewed (the bill’s) language, and they tell us infertility patients will not be protected,” she said.

Collura pointed to in-vitro fertilization, a procedure in which doctors fertilize an egg with sperm and implant it in a woman’s body. The process can result in excess or damaged fertilized eggs, which, she said, could fall under the proposal’s legal protection of embryos.

But the bill’s sponsor, Del. Bob Marshall, (R-13th), said the proposal specifically exempts legal practices, such as in-vitro fertilization.

“I suggest they get new legal counsel, because the conclusions that they are arriving at are a continuation of sideshows that this bill for some reason attracts,” he said. “None of these things have been abrogated by my bill; they are specifically accommodated. This is the third year we have had this bill. There is no effect on assisted reproduction. Period.”
Marshall included a section in the bill that says it would not “(affect) lawful assisted conception.”

Dr. Stephen Latham, director for the Yale Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics, disagrees. He said that while the law protects medically assisted pregnancy, it does not safeguard the treatments required to achieve it.

“You could paraphrase [Section 7 ] to say that nothing in this section shall be interpreted as affecting a pregnancy brought about by medical technology, but it doesn’t say anything about whether the section will affect or apply to embryos being handled in the course of the assisting technology,” he said.

Latham said that under the bill’s present language, embryos that are frozen but not implanted, embryos that failed to implant and others lost through medical procedures would be considered the victims of murder, and the medical facilities that attempted the procedures culpable.

He said Marshall’s proposals could meet the criticism by using clearer language.

“This problem looks to me like it is just a drafting problem,” he said. “You could draft a version of this bill that exempted and protected clinics that are doing assisted reproductive techniques.”

Marshall accused the bill’s critics of searching for a solution without a problem, since the process of medically assisted conception is protected by state law and would remain unchanged under his bill.

“I am a little bit suspicious. Are they going to suggest this now is going to require earthquake insurance? I cannot find anything that they are not willing to throw on the wall to suggest that is affected by this bill,” Marshall said.

The Virginia bill is among similar measures nationwide that would define life as beginning at the moment of conception.

Mississippi voters rejected a Personhood amendment to its state constitution in a November referendum, with 55 percent casting ballots against the measure.

The voter rebuke has not stopped other state lawmakers from championing the cause. The Oklahoma Legislature is now weighing two Personhood bills.

Olivia Gans, president of the Virginia Society for Human Life, a Richmond-based anti-abortion nonprofit, said she supports the Personhood measure in Virginia and other states.

“We believe very strongly that the lives of unborn children should be valued under the law, that there should be an effort made to acknowledge and recognize their common humanity with the rest of us and, as such, the Personhood bill is a step in the right direction,” she said.

The bill passed the House, 66-32, on Feb. 15, and the measure has been sent to the Senate Committee on Education and Health, which meets Feb. 24.

“We should not have laws based off religious ideals that goes against the ideals of the founding fathers and the 1st amendment.”

@FedUpDude: Our laws are not based on someone’s “ideals.” They are based on Mosaic law, about which the Founders (and not just the Founders) were very knowledgeable.

Moses, the Jewish lawgiver, is depicted several times in the stone and marble edifice that is the Supreme Court building, and so are the Ten Commandments. In sculpture, Moses sits as the prominent figure atop the building’s east side, holding two tablets representing the Ten Commandments. And on the wall directly behind the Chief Justice’s chair, an allegorical “Majesty of Law” places his muscular left arm on a tablet depicting the Roman numerals I through X.

Our laws reflect that we are not “pro-choice” when it comes to armed robbery and murder. We are not “pro-choice” about stealing, slander, rape, and even the abuse of animals. We instinctively know that these actions are morally wrong. And we instinctively know that the deliberate/deliberate taking of innocent/innocent human life - regardless of its place of residence - is wrong, no matter how much some might try to deny it. And if you are pro-life, then you must put your money, time, and other resources where your mouth is.

Finally, “pro-life” refers to more than just opposition to abortion on demand. It reflects an attitude and philosophy about the sanctity of human life throughout all of its stages and seasons. It is no more right to murder a sick, elderly human being or a special-needs child than it is to deliberately end the life of a baby residing in its mother’s womb.

A society that can justify the deliberate killing of its pre-born children for any reason or no reason and at any stage can (and will) eventually justify anything, because in such a society no one is safe. It is a very slippery slope and we’re already on it.

Siobhán - The question is why are they trying the make the law reflect their ideals instead of leaving the law open for all to do what they feel best.

Pro choice is that exactly, non religious or really non Catholics can chose to do as they see fit. Pro life takes the choice away. We should not have laws based off religious ideals that goes against the ideals of the founding fathers and the 1st amendment.

“In fact, the Bible is very clear about how God views life in the womb (read Psalm 39).”

That should be Psalm 139; David writes that God saw his “unformed body” in the womb:

“13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, 16 your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”

“Moses was for aborting children when a woman had been raped and the child was not her husband’s, but it isn’t up to us to prove it to you.”

@Loudoun Mom: When you make a claim that something is fact the burden is on YOU to prove it.

NO such approval for abortion exists ANYWHERE in Scripture, even in the passages in Exodus which specifically address personal injuries. The Bible never specifically addresses the issue of abortion because it was not something the ancient Hebrews would have ever contemplated. Quite the contrary. It was assumed that life began at conception. In fact, the Bible is very clear about how God views life in the womb (read Psalm 39). In fact, Psalm 39 tells us that God knew us before we were even conceived. The prophet Jeremiah was called by God while he was still in his mother’s womb. (“Before I formed you in the belly I knew you, and before you came forth out of the womb I sanctified you; I have appointed you a prophet unto the nations” - Jeremiah 1:5). John the Baptist leaped for joy in his mother’s womb when Mary came to visit Elizabeth, John’s mother, who was six months pregnant at the time. John, who was Jesus’ cousin, leaped for joy at Mary’s news of the incarnation (Luke 1: 39-45).

“Most of the bible refers to life not starting until one month out of the womb, so, uh, the personhood thing is bogus.”

There is NO passage anywhere in the Scriptures that supports your statement. Even our own laws do not support this. If someone deliberately kills an infant under the age of one month they will be charged with murder. And you may remember that Scott Peterson was charged with murder in the death of his wife AND his unborn son. You don’t get charged with murder if you haven’t deliberately killed a “person”.

Jeanne, yes, Moses was for aborting children when a woman had been raped and the child was not her husband’s, but it isn’t up to us to prove it to you. If you are so religious, you would know this. Most of the bible refers to life not starting until one month out of the womb, so, uh, the personhood thing is bogus. It was a pope in the 1880’s who declared life began at conception. Many cultures today don’t even name babies until they can live for 10 days outside the womb. Most ancient religious scholars didn’t consider you a “person” until you were actually born. Besides, the government has no business deciding philosophical arguments. They need to develop jobs, not worry about my uterus.

@Just a though - Sorry but the one a month law going away is not going to create a export market; only 3 states have that law anymore and states that dropped it have not had increased exports. That bill made a difference before the Brady bill required back ground checks and record keeping but it is useless today.

The limit did almost nothing for export numbers Brady dropped them 75% in this state.

If you want BIG VA to get into yours or others’ pants or bedrooms, invite them on over and have a party! If you knew anyone that was raped or suffered incest, you might feel differently about forcing them to relive those horrific, demeaning, and debilitating times(s) through state-sponsored rape or actually delivering a child. That would be a real loving exchange. I thank God you’re not our mother or judge.

Contraception is an accepted means of family planning, not to mention useful for many medical problems. Medical groups and families all over VA were alarmed about many common birth control methods and infertility treatments being outlawed under “personhood.” If you don’t want either of these, don’t take them but don’t take over our rights to them. I recall the wildest college co-eds being those who lived in the strictest housing arrangements, under the thumb of parents who didn’t trust them to make sound decisions (and lost their kids in the process). Again, I thank God you’re not our mother or judge.

“The whole contraception/abortion thing isn’t about saving babies, or going against God. There are instances of abortion in the Bible (Moses approved of it for birth control purposes), but you would actually have to read the Bible to know that.”

@“Ticked Off Mom”: Is that so? Please cite those passages (and I’ve read the Bible) to which you refer. You lie.

All the self-righteous out there ... I don’t know what God you pray to ... maybe the same God that told GW to invade Iraq. Stop. Just stop. We don’t need it. We don’t need big guberment telling us what to do, forcing us to participate in commerce by getting our vagis sonared and increasing our healthcare costs. This is 1940’s nazi $hit!!

Let’ see, yo can have all the guns you want because we believe in freedom, but, if you try to get an abortion, you hva to go through a State mandated rape. Good thing the Govorner is trying to be a VP candidate, or the Right Wing Nuts would have sanctioned State sponsered rape.

But FedUpDude, side arms, really. NoVA is not the wild, wild west, Dude…your Dudage. I was a marksman in the military. I have no problem with hunters. But creating an export market in VA to other states. Allowing citizens, other than law enforcement, to be armed in plain view of my child. I’ll agree to disagree with you because this is not the place. All the best.

@Real American: And all the while let’s relax gun laws and arm the right. It is very bizarre and actually quite scary. (I’m thinking of photo shopping and circulating images of the ultra right in Virginia in Taliban garb—guns and all.)

Got to love the modern world, news travels fast and when the fringe is trying to pass a fast one on use we can come down on them hard and fast and these bills the general population do not want die in comity.

At least women (in other states considering this type of legislation) have more information now that national attention has brought it to the forefront. I thought people learned from the lessons in Mississippi.

As time goes by, and the Fringe Right gets more traction, I see more parallels to muslim fundamentalists. No higher education, religious schools only, everyone the same religion, women out of the workplace, pregnant, and at home serving their men. I foresee a government where the only difference between us and the Taliban is the Holy book used. Please, let us not go there.

“How many angels can dance on the head of a pin.” Medieval thought has returned to the General Assy. in the 21st century. This is just another attempt by extremists inquisitors in Virginia’s conservative party to propagate an agenda of intolerance, bigotry and ignorance. Their pulpit continues to spew didactic and sanctimonious diatribes that threaten the individual liberties of Virginians and degrade political discourse. Out with Vogel, Cuccinelli and McDonnell and take your dark-age agenda with you.

No, the debate is not over, even if the bill is dead. These evil people will sit low for awhile, then re-introduce it under a different name with a few thinks tweaked, but still intending to strip women of their rights. Minchew, you represent my area and I will never vote for you again under any circumstances, same with of liar of a governor, so who wants to be vice president. No dude, if someone selects you as a running mate, I will support the OTHER guy because I know what is truly in your heart!

By only writing “ultrasound,” you can’t tell me that the writers of these bills didn’t realize that they would interpret that in an extreme and invasive manner. Back-pedalers, saying they didn’t realize what they were legislating, are talking out of both sides of their mouth to appease. Unnecessary, not supported by the medical community, and without consent are still concerns. Even with changes, it’s an abusive bill that needs to be killed.

An ultrasound from the outside shows nothing at the 1-12 week stage. At 6 weeks there is no organs or head formed yet, at 12 weeks a fetus is 2 inches long and is not formed into a human shape yet and is too small to be seen.

The original bill only said “ultrasound.” Ultrasounds are standard procedure before an abortion, look at the National Abortion Federations website.

Because of all the outcry that a vaginal ultrasound might be required (and sometimes they are very early in a pregnancy to confirm the number of fetuses, etc.) the Gov sent an amendment back to the house of delegates, that said a vaginal ultrasound could not be performed without the consent of the mother and is not required by this Bill….

This bill is about humiliating a women going in for an abortion. A vaginal (probe) ultrasound is NOT needed to view a pregnancy. A regular adnominal ultra sound shows same thing. Also, ultrasounds are already performed on women prior to abortions to determine gestation.

And we are appalled and repulsed by how women in other countries are treated? We are no different. Repulsive and demented.

But see….this is a bullsh!t bill because if you REALLY believed life started at conception you wouldn’t ALLOW women to indirectly harm their own baby as clause 6 suggests. Stop trying to control women and get back to business. You pass this and there will be more laws introduced to prosecute pregnant women….that’s pretty much a guarantee with the fanatical, women-controlling politicians currently serving (cough cough) the state.

I am not sure that a government has the right to decide when “life” begins…so right from the get go this bill has a major flaw…who gives a government that right? This is just a religious extremist view of conception. Seems to me that this is a medical issue and doctors can decide that ethical debate with their respective patients…This bill is also very vague…leading to many other amendments and bills to further infringe on the rights of women in this state.

§ 2. Unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being.

§ 3. The natural parents of unborn children have protectable interests in the life, health, and well-being of their unborn child.

§ 4. The laws of this Commonwealth shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this Commonwealth, subject only to the Constitution of the United States and decisional interpretations thereof by the United States Supreme Court and specific provisions to the contrary in the statutes and constitution of this Commonwealth.

§ 5. As used in this section, the term “unborn children” or “unborn child” shall include any unborn child or children or the offspring of human beings from the moment of conception until birth at every stage of biological development.

§ 6. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as creating a cause of action against a woman for indirectly harming her unborn child by failing to properly care for herself or by failing to follow any particular program of prenatal care.

Okay so let me get this right…..from conception this is a person. That would mean any mother caught smoking or drinking or doing anything else dangerous to her unborn baby should be prosecuted for child endangerment, right? We’re gonna need a special “pregnant prison” in this state.

Blue Ridge Voter you are not posting the whole bill the bill has 6 amendments to it. I suggest everyone look the bill up and read it. It offers the weakest of protection for abortion, pregnant mothers, and fertility clinics and has many holes which no doubt the bill was written that way on purpose.

This bill and the ultrasound bill have one purpose, to weaken abortion rights and shame the women who seek one.

McDonald knows these bills are massive losers and he wants to be VP so now he is taking a step back because it is hurting his chances at getting on anyone’s ticket as VP.

If a fertilized egg is a baby in your eyes that needs to be protected, then that would have to be true whether it is in the womb or in a petri dish or in a frozen container. A fertilized egg is a fertilized egg. Otherwise you are just trying to control pregnant women and it has nothing to do with your concept of “Life.” Stop it.

Keep up the pressure on the Governor and Legislators; write or call, sign petitions or talk with other sensible women and men to inform them of the overreach. To think that this replacement forced ultrasound bill is any better than the first is ridiculous; it’s written in haste and is still forcing women to pay for medically unnecessary procedures that not even the medical community supports.

The intent is to humiliate women that have already made a very difficult decision and to drive up costs; to take women’s choice away. Women’s health is the only thing they can go after. The more they target women, the more politicians will be in danger of their jobs in the future. Women are not stupid nor are they going sit by quietly. Politicians should never be writing hokey “medical prescription"s such as these bills suggest.

None of you get it. It’s fascism against women. We’re not going to put up with it. It’s assault on our rights. We NEVER forget. Men, don’t go there. Richmond needs a serious reality check. What planet are they living on?

How does the Bible define personhood? Both Leviticus and Numbers state a child is not considered “alive” until it survives one month after birth. In Exodus, if a pregnant woman is beaten and loses a fetus, her family is compensated for HER injury or death, but not for the miscarriage (i.e., it wasn’t ALIVE). Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas said the soul didn’t enter the fetus until 80 days after conception. The whole “life begins at conception” was unheard of until 1869 when Pope Pius IX started it. Genesis states if a prostitute gets pregnant, she should be burned to death, fetus and all. I’m done with the christians slinging the bible. The bible is stories open to interpretation by anyone, any way they want to spin it. Put it down and read something inteligent!

Gov McDonnell is going to require the ultrasound bill be amended. He is working on his own amendment to require the mother’s consent to the procedure.

Since planned parenthood (or private doctors) won’t do an abortion without the ultrasound, he was convinced that a woman will not get an abortion without if she does not consent to the ultrasound anyway.

The main purpose of the Bill is that Planned Parenthood or whoever does the abortion must allow the mother to view the ultrasound, if she asks to look at it… they cannot say no.

I pray that Mike Farris or Pat Robertson can talk some sense into the weak Bob McDonnell. He mustn’t falter on this.

Anything we can do to protect the precious unborn must be done. We now have the strict regulations on clinics, and this law will further convince women of their misled ways if they seek to murder their baby. Once we get the personhood bill we can have the State Police shut down these murder houses once and for all.

You apologizing so-called conservatives should be ashamed of yourselves. This is our crowning moment - stand up and fight for the unborn!

The whole contraception/abortion thing isn’t about saving babies, or going against God. There are instances of abortion in the Bible (Moses approved of it for birth control purposes), but you would actually have to read the Bible to know that. No, this is about power and control, bullying if you will. The authors of these bills are simply weak, insecure men who want to return to the religious glory (or was it gory?) days of the Inquisition, including our esteemed governor, who now has no chance of a future political career after this debacle.

Bring on the lawsuits! Get doctors to speak on this, not politicians.
Did the VA Legislators really think they could slide these bills by with no questions or concerns from the ones that are being directly assaulted by these laws, women?

Everyone can wax about whether the trans-vaginal ultrasound is necessary or not (it isn’t, by the way, BRV), but the REALLY offensive thing here is that the republican legislature VETOED an amendment that would have required the woman’s consent for the procedure to be performed.

Let me restate that: republican legislators VETOED an amendment to the ultrasound bill that would have simply required a woman give her consent before being probed with a vaginal ultrasound.

Under the current draft legislation, a woman who wishes to terminate her pregnancy cannot decline to have the trans-vaginal ultrasound, meaning a wand instrument will be inserted into her vagina and manipulated by a radiologist WITHOUT her consent in order for her to obtain a legal medical procedure.

That’s how you know- the ultrasound bill isn’t about informed consent at all- it’s about shaming women who are seeking to fill their legal right to a medical procedure that, by the way, when it’s most commonly performed (more than 90% of abortions are performed within the first trimester of pregnancy- that’s 12 weeks or less) actually poses less of a risk to a woman than carrying a pregnancy to term.

As far as personhood goes yes, it would in fact effectively outlaw abortion in VA. Of course, I doubt it’ll make it past the slew of legal challenges that will no doubt come if McDonnell decides to sign it into law, but no matter.

This republican majority is more interested in wasting taxpayer money on ideology-based legislation, rather than tackle the real problems Virginians face like transportation, joblessness, etc.

I urge anyone who loves women, who is concerned about the rights of women, to call McDonnell’s office at (804) 786-2211 and tell him not to sign these egregious pieces of legislation. Tell him to trust and respect the decisions of women and their physicians.

Blue Ridge Voter’s opinions are so 18th century ago. He spins this and has no credibility on women’s reproductive freedoms or attempted restrictions. There is indeed potential for banned hormonal contraceptives including common forms of birth control and IUDs under one bill, and unwanted forced penetration of the vagina by an inanimate object (FBI definition of rape) in the other bill. It doesn’t matter whether the procedure is less invasive (You ought to try it yourself if that’s your belief), it’s by force as well as being medically unnecessary. This is about power and control. not religious liberty or conviction.

BRV must have been hired by a politician or evangelicals in order to have time during work to argue for lo these many hours. The political operatives are in force, in the guise of having religious motives.

Thanks FedUpDude for getting on board. Subverted attempts to insert religiosity into government where it doesn’t belong was the objective all along. Just read Gov. McDonnell’s thesis - a big reason why I would never support his archaic views on women.

Why can’t Repulicans just focus on business, the thing they purport to be so good at? Oh wait, because they have no real business skill or knowledge, so they fall back on what they do best—trying to dictate their view of morals on the rest of us.

I can tell you, I don’t need any help from any Republican on my morals. Stay out of my life please…until you can do that, you’ll never get a vote from me.

and Blue Ridge….to say a trans vag ultra sound is a necessary requirement to determine GA…is a crock! I have had several children and never had one- even though I had many complications.. It is a newer type of procedure and not medically necessary. You can tell a multiple birth with a traditional ultrasound procedure. Women have a choice as to whether or not they want this type. They can decline even if the doctor says it might be better.

Blue Ridge: you are not getting it…IF a parent decides that they want heroics done..even if doctors know it is futile and deny that, which they would on an 18 week fetus. THAT is where the problem lies…it is a can of worms. AND the gov. reversed his view on the ultrasound thing…why? because the national media go ahold of it…check out the Daily show

FedUpDude, I reprinted the entirety of HB1. You are not looking at the legislatures’ website if it is saying this bill will overturn Roe vs. Wade—that is ugly spin by Democrats, because the bill specifically says it is subject to Roe vs. Wade and other US Supreme Court precedents, and that it exempts abortion… If you think HB 1 has six parts, then please reprint them and tell us where exactly you found them? I think you are looking at misinformation… please correct me if I am wrong…

Go to planned parenthoods site and read about what they require before they will do an abortion. They have different procedures depending on the exact age of the fetus. And if the fetus is very young the always do the vaginal ultrasound. For someone who wants an abortion, the vaginal ultrasound is a lot less “invasive” than the actual abortion.

Yes, for people who are having a baby and want the pregnancy to continue there is no need for a vaginal ultrasound, and usually the first is done later… and it is not vaginal. But for someone who they believe is only a few weeks pregnant, the vaginal ultrasound is the ONLY way to determine if it is an ectopic pregnancy (look that one up) or how many fetuses there are (to make sure you do the full abortion) etc…

Blue Ridge Voter - That is part one, there are 6 parts to the bill look on the VA legislators website. What is says is if RvW was overturned there go your protections.

On the other anti abortion bill how is a vaginal ultrasound necessary as you state? No one is required to have one my wife is 30 weeks pregnant and she declined to have an ultrasound until week 20 when the babies sex can be seen and the ultra sound is done from the outside. It is an option and people have free will to use it or not.

Blue Ridge Voter is male otherwise he would know that vaginal ultrasounds are NOT required. Most women get standard ultrasounds around 10 weeks at the earliest and they are NOT internal. He has no idea what a vaginal ultrasound is, obviously. Forcing a woman to have this is rape, pure and simple and that is what the bill proposes.

The ultrasound bill obviously allows abortion since it is regulating abortions by requiring all providers to do the ultrasound before an abortion. The life at conception bill says:

“Rights of unborn children. Provides that unborn children at every stage of development enjoy all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of the Commonwealth, subject only to the laws and constitutions of Virginia and the United States, precedents of the United States Supreme Court, and provisions to the contrary in the statutes of the Commonwealth.”

It is subject to the precedents of the US Supreme Court (among others, Roe v Wade.)

I have read the bill it does not specify anything regarding abortion it only says:

6. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as creating a cause of action against a woman for indirectly harming her unborn child by failing to properly care for herself or by failing to follow any particular program of prenatal care.

Which gives no protection to medically aborting a child; frankly it protects Christian scientists for not seeking medical care.

Routinely in the first few weeks of pregnancy, a vaginal ultrasound is required—but again, Planned Parenthood (performs more abortions than any other group in VA) already does these as standard procedure to make sure 1. the woman is actually pregnant, 2. how many fetuses, 3. if the pregnancy is ectopic (very dangerous), 3.the age of the baby to decide what kind of abortion procedure… No private doctor would do an abortion without this, and risk losing his license… it is only clinics that are not above board who attempt to do abortions without an ultrasound… and it is these people who threaten the lives and health of our young women. This just legislates standard responsible medical practice. It is a good law.

Blue Ridge - it isn’t ultrasound, it is INVASIVE ultra sound because it is too small to be seen in a regular ultrasound. INVASIVE, do you know what that means? Nothing more than legalizing state sponsored rape.

Blue Ridge: since said fetus does not have a will or an advanced directive (which is what you really need) and since it is a person, this law protect them…no matter what…
its a stupid bill along with all the other crap that this group of individuals is trying to shove down the throat of women. I find it funny the McDonnel does not feel that we should have mandatory health care yet he thinks it is ok for the government to intrude on the health care decisions of women and their doctors..what an ass.

This Bill acknowledges that it does not apply to abortion, that abortion is a right under our laws… I am not sure what you are talking about. It creates rights for the mother, father and unborn where the unborn is wanted. It does not mandate that a child born prematurely must be saved, unless the parents want the doctor to try to save it.

As far as the ultra sound bill, if that is what you are talking about, even the National Abortion Federation says ultrasounds are standard procedure in all abortions, and Planned Parenthood on its website describes what it requires: two or three visits, the first one (and possibly the last one) include ultrasounds… the ultra sound is required to determine how many fetuses there are, if they are ectopic, if the patient is pregnant… and how many weeks exactly the fetus is, how large it is, which dictates the kind of procedure employed. The law simply says the patient can look at the ultra sound if she wishes, and the doctor cannot say no don’t.

There is at least one case of a woman who had to have an emergency hysterectomy because her doctor did not do an ultrasound, thought the baby was younger and smaller, and was wrong, so at that point in the procedure he had no choice to save the life of the mother. An ultrasound would have meant she could have more children if she so chose.

Both of these laws are already laws in many other states. They do not limit the access to abortion at all—by their very words, and many courts have determined these bills do not limit access to abortion, which have been litigated in other areas of the Country.

Blue Ridge, this is the way the GOP works, chip away at rights, little by little. Smaller gov’t? Not where your body is concerned. I know two people who have had abortions, one because the mother would have died and she gave up the “son” she so wanted, and the other was a fetus that would have suffered painfully and would have died days after birth. The parents did the right thing in both cases (and it was heartbreaking in both instances) and it was no one else’s business! If the GOP keeps passing these bills, each one taking a bit away, then we, as women, will be left with nothing, no rights to our own bodies, no contraceptives, no healthcare. What makes these laws any different from fundamentalist islamists who keep their women uneducated, at home, reading only religious texts, no access to doctors, and pumping out a baby a year? We are above that. The religious kooks cannot be allowed to tell everyone else how to live their lives!

@FedUpDude, you obviously have not read the Bill, it is a bill to protect the wanted unborn, by its specific language. And as for the concerns about a child born prematurely, plenty of older people have wills with directions not to put them on life support… you do not have to save what cannot be saved, but you must recognize that the wanted baby in utero has value as life.

REad the Bill, it specifically recognizes the rights a woman has to abortion and states those rights are not changed, and it also specifically addresses the fertility issue..

This is a non issue, that the LEFT is twisting and distorting, trying desperately to mislead the general public and women in particular accusing our General Assembly (which passed this with bi partisan and overwhelming support) falsely…

what is questionable about this bill: Suppose a woman is 18-19 weeks pregnant..for whatever reason begins labor and despite all best efforts she delivers an 18-19 week fetus..which may possibly after delivery attempt to breathe(I have seen it happen) SO…should every effort then be made to “save” said fetus? IF said fetus is in fact a “person” then one would have to argue yes..however, this “person” is non-viable…and IF said parents insist on heroics and the “person” dies (which it will) is the hospital/doctor liable? The truth is LIFE begins when it is mature enough to be a life. For humans that is around 24 weeks gestation…at that point medical assistance is needed but generally the outcome is that the child can live.

So, In-Vitro treatments don’t count? So only eggs fertilized inside a woman are real babies, but eggs fertilized in a lab are not? Again, its all about hatred of women and her uterus. No thanks, it will be a cold day in hell before this Republican woman votes Republican again!

Blue Ridge Voter - Horse crap this is an anti abortion law and the republicans currently in office clearly have a right wing social agenda. If you want to protected wanted unborn children then write a law with specific language for it.

Personally I love the law makers attaching a sperm is sacred amendment to these effort in other states making male self pleasure illegal (bill dies when it happens). Not only does it show law makers hypocrisy it makes a Monte Python reference :D

Righteous Rule is an atheist trying to talk like a Christian, mocking what he “thinks” Christians think, and he is wrong.

This bill does not limit access to birth control or to abortion (specifically says abortion rights remain according to Roe v Wade, state law, State Constitution and US Constitution), does not limit in vitro treatments…

This is just the LEFT trying to make it look like Rs are only about “social issues” and trying to distort what is actually being proposed as law… they cannot attack Gov McDonnell (who may be our next VP) on jobs or the economy, so they generate these false accusations and spin about legislation.

By the way, many other states have this exact same law, and the purpose is to protect and value the unborn that has been chosen, is wanted. Right now, if the unborn were killed in an auto accident by a drunk driver, and the mom could never have children again, it would be “so what” the baby was not a baby…

OK, so I’m as righty as they come. Not a religious guy, but I do think that innocent life should be protected by law. I define life as an organism that would be able to survive outside the womb. At that point the baby’s right to life then trumps a woman’s right to choose. But that’s just me.

Having said that, The comment made by Righteous Rule, makes me want to march all of these idiots off of a cliff at gunpoint like the blind buffalo they are.

The Righteous Rule - Fine then you don’t have those procedures if you don’t want them. Your religious views should not effect me or my family and bills built on religious belief like this nonsense will only waste time and money because they will never fly thanks the the 1A that protects Americans from religious based laws.

Birth control and fertility treatments are affronts to God and must be eliminated. I trust that our righteous leaders will make this happen. The barren wombs were made so by God for a reason, as were the fertile ones. We must not tamper with either lest we be thrown into the fires of Hades.

Comments express only the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of this website or any associated person or entity. Any user who believes a message is objectionable can contact us at moderator@timespapers.com.